Chennai Court February 1930 Judgments
Thiagaraja Pillai Vs. Appavoo Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad22
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There were four items of property each belonging to a different person. The suit properties were adjacent to those four items and the four persons mentioned above owned them as tenants-in-common. In execution of a decree passed against one of the four men whom I shall call C, defendant 1 purchased the items covered by the suit in 1899., At that time C, as I have said, was only one of the four proprietors who owned the items as tenants-in-common. But as the lower Courts have rightly held, what defendant 1 purported to purchase was not merely the one-fourth share of C, but the items as a whole. The plaintiff files this suit on the strength of a sale deed executed in his favour in 1923 by another co-tenant whom I shall call F. The plaintiff's case is that he is entitled to recover from defendant 1 the one-fourth share which he (the plaintiff) purchased from F. The lower Courts have rejected the plaintiff's claim. The question is whether defendant 1 has acquired titl...
Tag this Judgment!Nanduri Saradamba Vs. Parakala Pattabhiramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad207; (1931)60MLJ13
Curgenven, J.1. One Viyyanna died without issue in November, 1915, leaving a widow, Saradamba, who is the present defendant. Viyyanna.'s sister, Bayamma, upon his death took possession of his estate, which included about six acres of land, on behalf of her minor sons under a will alleged to have been executed in favour of the boys by Viyyanna on the 17th July, 1915. In O.S. No. 885 of 1920 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, the widow sued for recovery of the property together with mesne (profits on the ground that the will was a forgery, and obtained a decree on 6th February, 1922. Of Bayamma's sons, the elder, Lachanna, died during the suit and the younger brother is the present plaintiff. He has brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, to recover from Viyyanna's estate in the defendant's hands a sum of Rs. 5,000 and odd on the ground that he paid this amount to Viyyanna's creditors while he and his brother were in possession of the estate. The pay...
Tag this Judgment!Kottakota Venkatarami Reddi Vs. Sri Maharaja Seetharama Bhupal Rao (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1004; (1930)59MLJ548
Reilly, J.1. In this suit the Raja of Gadwal sued the defendant', a resident of the Kurnool district, on ten documents, which are called Shokhas. The defendant admitted liability on one of them, Exhibit K, and disputed liability on the others. The Subordinate Judge made a decree for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. The defendant appeals.2. Before the Subordinate Judge in his written statement the defendant objected to the suit on the ground that Gadwal was a foreign State and that the plaintiff was suing, not to enforce a private right, but to enforce a State right arising out of liability to pay revenue due to the State. The learned Subordinate Judge did not consider at the trial the question whether Gadwal was a foreign State. He found that the right which the plaintiff was suing to enforce was a private right. When the appeal came on for hearing in this Court, the defendant raised a rather different objection, which was not set out in his appeal memorandum, namely, that Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Komalangi Ammal (Minor) by Her Father and Guardian, Kandasami Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad37; (1930)59MLJ529
Ramesam, J.1. Most of the decisions of all the High Courts are against the appellant. They are referred to by the learned Trial Judge and need not be repeated. The learned advocate for the appellant relies on Hanumantha Rao v. Lctchamma. I.L.R. (1926) M. 960 : 51 M.L.J. 563 This case has been considered by the Trial Judge. It is based on In the matter of the Petition of Bhobo-soonduri Dabee I.L.R. (1880) C. 460 a case which has not been followed in the Calcutta High Court ever since and certain other decisions. The cases in Arakal Bastian Ansap v. Narayana Aiyar I.L.R. (1910) M. 405 and Kishen Dai v. Satyendra Nath Dutt I.L.R. (1901) C. 441 also referred to in it are cases of judgment-creditors of a son of the testator. In Arakal Bastian Ansap v. Narayana Aiyar I.L.R. (1910) M. 405 the will was revoked and it was not necessary to rely on In the matter of the Petition of Bhobosoonduri Dabee. I.L.R. (1880) C. 460 The decision in Brinda Choivdhrain v. Radhica Chowdhrain I.L.R. (1885) C 49...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Ramaraja Tevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ945
1. The sixteen appellants do not dispute the Lower Court's findings of fact.2. On 11th April, 1929, at Khansapuram, 20 to 30 persons came from the north armed with guns and sticks with the common object of shooting Sangiah Tevan and looting his house. When they were 50 yards off the house, one Sundara Tevan, P.W. 10, tried to dissuade them, and Krishna Tevan, P.W. 11, who belongs to Sangiah's faction, abused them. Krishna Tevan was hit on the head by accused 13, and then two more of the opposite faction, Alagu and Sangiah, ran up. The 1st appellant shot Alagu, and the third shot Sangiah. Then the fourth fired into seven persons who came to help them, after which there was a general stampede. Alagu was shot through his. heart and died immediately. Sangiah had his leg broken and died of gangrene on the 14th.3. The learned Judge has found that the shooting and the assault upon Krishnan were the sudden outbreaks of individual members of the assembly,, and therefore presumably were not in p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetti and ors. Vs. Delhi Batcha Tevar Alias Udayana Tevar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ302
1. The suit is to recover from defendants 1 to 3 the sum of Rs. 49,982-3-2 due on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of his son since deceased, the 2nd defendant and Vengu Nachiar, who is also dead. The other respondents are subsequent mortgagees. The mortgage is dated the 20th January, 1902, and was for a consideration of Rs. 7,500 payable within six years with compound interest at 1 per cent, per mensem with ten months' rests and in default on demand with compound interest at the same rate with ten months' rests. It is alleged that the debt was contracted for the expenses of a suit, O.S. No. 18 of 1901, on the file of the Sub-Court, East Madura, for household expenses and for discharging prior sundry debts. There are two items of property recited in the mortgage deed and the first item is alleged to belong to the 2nd defendant but under the decree in the before-mentioned suit the 2nd defendant and the late Vengu Nachiar are each entitled to a quarter...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetti and ors. Vs. Delhi Badaha Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad335; 131Ind.Cas.840
1. The suit is to recover from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 the sum of Rs. 49,1982 3-2 due on a mortgage executed by defendant No. 1 for himself and as guardian of his son since deceased, defendant No. 2, and Vengu Nachiar who is also dead. The other respondents are subsequent mortgagees. The mortgage is dated 20th January, 1902, and was for a consideration of Rs. 7,500 payable within six years with compound interest at 1 per cent, per mensem with ten months-rests, and in default on demand with compound interest at the same rate with ten months rests. It is alleged that the debt was contracted for the expenses of a suit, O.S. No 18 of 1901, on the file of the Sub-Court, East Madura, for household expenses and for discharging prior sundry-debts There are two items of property recited in the mortgage-deed and item No. 1 is alleged to belong to defendant No. 2, but under the decree in the before-mentioned suit defendant No. 2 and the late Vengu Nachiar are each entitled to a quarter share. The ...
Tag this Judgment!The Pannaji Devi Chand, a Marwadi Firm and Company, Consisting of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad635; (1930)59MLJ859
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff firm against the defendant firm claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages which the plaintiffs alleged they sustained by reason of the defendants having wrongfully attached before judgment the properties in the defendant firm.2. The plaintiffs and the defendants were merchants who were carrying on business in partnership. The plaintiffs were carrying on business at Bellary and the defendants were carrying on business at Gadag. It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bellary District Court for winding up the business and for taking accounts. The defendants brought a suit against the plaintiffs and two other firms in the Court of the 1st Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar for a breach of contract claiming Rs. three lakhs twelve thousand odd. The defendants filed an affidavit on the 30th of March, 1920, and applied for attachment before judgment of certain properties...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. the Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ410
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner's lands In Naduvacheri village were acquired to the extent of 47 cents in accordance with the scheme sanctioned in G.O. No. 3559, Revenue, dated the 10th November, 1917. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated the 17th November, 1925. After the award was made, the petitioner put in an application on the 22nd December, 1925, tinder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) requiring the matter to be referred to the Subordinate Court on the ground that there had been a gross undervaluation of the properties acquired. Under Section 25 (2) of the Act when an applicant has omitted without sufficient reason to make a claim, the amount awarded by the Court, i. e., the Subordinate Court, shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellant had omitted to make a claim under the Act and that such omission was without sufficient reason. Upon that finding he cou...
Tag this Judgment!Ammani Ammal Vs. M. Narayanasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad915; (1930)59MLJ425
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of procedure. The facts out of which the matter arises may be stated. One Perumal Naidu died in Madras in 1924 leaving his sister Ammani Ammal. A brother of his named Ramaswami Naidu predeceased him. One M. Nara-yanaswami Naidu, who is a brother of Govindammal, widow of Ramaswami Naidu, applied for letters of administration to the estate of Perumal Naidu. That application was O. P. No. 106 of 1924. Letters of administration were granted to him on the 5th February, 1925, after notice to Ammani Ammal and to Govindammal.2. The present application was filed on the 17th of August, 1929, praying that the letters of administration granted to Narayanaswami Naidu should be recalled. The grounds disclosed in the affidavit accompanying this application are that: Narayanaswami Naidu in his application of 1924 claimed to be the adopted son of Ammani Ammal but as a matter of fact he was not the adopted son, that Ammani Ammal was made to appear t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›